Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Subscribe to HRA Now!

 



Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?

Share and download Custom Google Analytics Reports, dashboards and advanced segments--for FREE! 

 



 

 www.CustomReportSharing.com 

From the folks who brought you High Rankings!



Photo
- - - - -

Influencing Content For A Branded Search In The Google Knowledge Graph


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 ttw

ttw

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Location:San Mateo, California

Posted 24 July 2014 - 01:59 PM

I would like to influence the information that the Google Knowledge graph displays for one our clients to include:

  • company founding date,
  • CEO's name and founder name

This information is already included in the client's wikipedia entry.  

Where else can we make changes to update this knowledge graph?  Is their structured data option for founding dates, CEO/founder names?   Should we include this information in their Google+ profile?    We are already using the publisher tag.

 

---------------

 

We see another issue in the knowledge graph depending on how you search for the client's name.  Let's say the clients name is:   ABS Company.   

  • When I do a Google search for "ABSCompany" I see a Google+ post appear   (this is not the way most people search for the company based on GWMTs)
  • When I do a Google search for "ABS Company" (the way most people would search for this) the Google+ post disappears.  
  • We have added all versions of the name in the client's Freebase account.

 

Thank you for any input.

 

 

 



#2 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,671 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 25 July 2014 - 08:20 AM

I can't give you any advice, but can you tell me more about what you've done on Freebase and whether it's made a difference for you? I have issues with the Knowledge Graph's view of my company, all of which apparently comes from Wikipedia, and I've spent some time adding information to Freebase in the hope that it would help. So far (and it's been about half a year, I think) I'm not seeing any indication that Google's paying attention to their own open-source database of named entities.



#3 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,513 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 25 July 2014 - 10:00 AM

 

I'm not seeing any indication that Google's paying attention to their own open-source database of named entities.

Well let's face it, ever since Google bought Metaweb and announced that FreeBase data would be used in their "Knowledge Graph", EVERY SEO "expert" will have been doing their best to find some way of manipulating it.

 

What would be better to make the "experts" run around chasing their tails while Google simply go off in a different direction whistling gleefully and use Wikipedia data instead.

It may not be 100% accurate,  but it's pretty damned difficult to subvert it into search spam.

 

The idiots are STILL flapping around the ODP like flies round [img]http://www.highrankings.com/forum/style_images/poo.gif[/img] (no offence DMOZ but if the cap fits) THREE years after Google dropped it completely, so I am sure Google likes to throw the "experts" a nice juicy bone that they can all fight over how 'important' it is, when really it's totally useless and it's just there to keep them occupied.



#4 ttw

ttw

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Location:San Mateo, California

Posted 25 July 2014 - 10:32 AM

Hi Chris:  Thanks for your reply.   I don't feel like we're trying to manipulate Freebase or trick the system, but to take advantage of opportunities that Google suggests can improve organic results for our clients.



#5 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,671 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 25 July 2014 - 12:44 PM

I don't think I'm trying to manipulate it either, but Chris is absolutely right. Of course SEOs are going to jump in and ruin everything. AJ Kohn mentioned in an article he wrote a few months ago that he was planning a piece about Freebase, and I'd be interested in getting his perspective, but of course as soon as he publishes it, a million more of us are going to descend on the site and make things worse.

 

I'd like to edit my company's Wikipedia page, and maybe even create a separate page for the division I work for (which is what the Knowledge Graph is so confused about), but I'm concerned that my relationship with the company (which Wikipedia now requires us to announce) would cause editors to just assume I was making the edits in the hope of gaining some commercial benefit.



#6 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,513 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 26 July 2014 - 02:16 AM

The 'trick' with writing your own 'spiel' at Wikipedia is to not make it a 'spiel' and simply make it factual without any embellishment or flair.

 

Treat it as if you were writing an obituary for someone you REALLY did not like but need to sound as if you did.



#7 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,276 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 26 July 2014 - 09:06 AM

John Mueller recently said in one of his online chats that Google doesn't want brands to be able to take advantage of the Knowledge Graph.

#8 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,671 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 28 July 2014 - 08:50 AM

Did his statement indicate any recognition of a difference between taking advantage of the KG and clarifying the information in the KG? My company would derive some benefit from getting the changes I'd like to see, but so would the Knowledge Graph itself.

 

Not every corporate entity does business in a single category, and I'm OK with the KG choosing to assign one category to my company, but to assign that one category to the site of the one division of the company that isn't involved in that business, and to fail to associate the division of the company that is involved in that business with the KG entry for the company at all is simply incorrect.

 

Ideally, I want the Knowledge Graph to recognize the business that my division is in so that our site will be categorized the same way as the companies we compete with, but that might be asking too much. I'll settle for getting the right information in the right place and worry about adding additional (useful) information later.



#9 ttw

ttw

    HR 5

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 382 posts
  • Location:San Mateo, California

Posted 28 July 2014 - 05:03 PM

Hi Michael: OF COURSE Google doesn't want us to to take advantage of the Knowledge Graph but since we all pretty much live and die by Google I'd like to figure out how to correct information in that big side bar.  

 

I find it frustrating when one company's KG shows 6 elements and another only 2.  KG appears for a branded search so why doesn't Google use some type of consistency?  Why should one big brand get their CEO's name to appear while another does not?  (even when both CEOs have wikipedia pages?).    You would think that if Google deemed  having this information appear for one brand that it should be good for all?



#10 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,513 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 28 July 2014 - 06:06 PM

 

but since we all pretty much live and die by Google I'd like to figure out how to correct information in that big side bar.

 

If you truly think that, .... ...  you should change your occupation.



#11 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,276 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 28 July 2014 - 06:33 PM

Did his statement indicate any recognition of a difference between taking advantage of the KG and clarifying the information in the KG? My company would derive some benefit from getting the changes I'd like to see, but so would the Knowledge Graph itself.


It was a quick answer tossed out in response to a terse question. I infer from the lack of context that:
  • John is not directly involved in the Knowledge Graph team
  • His viewpoint is that Google wants the Knowledge Graph to be about more than brands
  • Google is probably still figuring out how it should work


#12 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,276 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 28 July 2014 - 06:39 PM

Hi Michael: OF COURSE Google doesn't want us to to take advantage of the Knowledge Graph but since we all pretty much live and die by Google I'd like to figure out how to correct information in that big side bar.


I have not found myself or any of my clients in this situation. I don't know of anyone else who is in this situation. At this stage in the process you will have to fall back on experimentation, which almost certainly means figuring out how to influence the Wikipedia article without triggering any alarms at Wikipedia.

If the Knowledge Graph is displaying incorrect information about the company and that info is taken from Wikipedia you probably have two options:
  • Find a way to update the Wikipedia article without the edits being associated with you/your client
  • Start a discussion on the company TALK page explaining the issue and what you think would fix it in Google's Knowledge Graph
If you try option 1 you run the risk of people adding that page to their WATCH lists and they may never allow corrective edits.

If you try option 2 you run the risk of the Wikipedia trolls immediately denouncing you and adding that page to their WATCH lists and they may never allow corrective edits.

On the other hand, either option might work and you'll get the edits you desire.

If you get the edits you desire and no one vandalizes the page the fix will either work or it won't. In which case all that effort will be for naught (but maybe the Wikipedia article will have been improved).

It's a gamble no matter how you look at it, so you pays your money and you picks your horse.

#13 chrishirst

chrishirst

    A not so moderate moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 7,513 posts
  • Location:Blackpool UK

Posted 29 July 2014 - 01:59 AM

It a shame that the Wikipedia "No insider trading" zealots have not yet figured out that the people who run, or work for the entity involved might, by  some mysterious means, be in the best place to correct some of the glaring inaccuracies that do exist at in many of their 'articles'.

 

Having unbiased information is all well and good, having unbiased but inaccurate information, is a whole different kettle of coloured horses.

 

 

Though at least it does solve one mystery. That of;

 

Where did the DMOZ editors go?



#14 qwerty

qwerty

    HR 10

  • Moderator
  • 8,671 posts
  • Location:Somerville, MA

Posted 29 July 2014 - 07:39 AM

Speaking of DMOZ editors, remember (back when enough people believed that a DMOZ listing mattered that it got discussed a lot) how they used to reiterate that they didn't care about how a listing affected search engine rankings and were interested only in accuracy?

 

I was corresponding with a Wikipedia editor a few months ago about my situation, and he made it pretty clear that the Knowledge Graph wasn't his concern. Because of that, he didn't consider an issue in the KG to be a valid reason to edit a Wikipedia article. That's just what I inferred from what he wrote, but I think it's a pretty accurate interpretation. I also think it's a perfectly legitimate stance to take. That doesn't mean I like it, however.


Edited by qwerty, 29 July 2014 - 10:11 AM.


#15 Michael Martinez

Michael Martinez

    HR 10

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,276 posts
  • Location:Georgia

Posted 29 July 2014 - 09:13 AM

Yes, I can see how one's desire to organize information to benefit all mankind absolves one of any responsibility for inaccuracy and incorrectness directly attributable to one's efforts to organize information for the benefit of all mankind.

Then again, Wikipedia publishes so many opinions and so much original research you just can't take their guidelines very seriously.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

SPAM FREE FORUM!
 
If you are just registering to spam,
don't bother. You will be wasting your
time as your spam will never see the
light of day!